REPORT/Peter Downs

Food Gene Fixers Split
Over Corporate Control

Special to The Progressive Populist

St. Louis, Mo.

Widening divisions among the proponents of genetic engineering
were especially evident at a recent meeting of plant scientists.

Gene-splicers at the 16th International Botanical Congress
predictably attacked "ultra-greens" such as Greenpeace for
"hi-jacking" public debate on genetic engineering, but they also
attacked Monsanto and other large corporations for arrogantly
ignoring the public and blocking the progress of science.

Monsanto, Novartis and Dupont were among the sponsors of the
congress, which was held in St. Louis in early August. The congress,
which meets once every six years, was attended by an estimated 4,000
plant scientists from around the world. This was the first one in the
United States since 1969.

Despite efforts by the organizers of the congress and the host,
the Missouri Botanical Garden, to use the occasion to mount a
spirited defense of genetic engineering, gene engineers appeared
desperate to separate their work from the people who control it.

Like many of those present, John Bryant, from the University of
Exeter in England, tried to distinguish between "the ethics and
safety of the technology and the ethics and safety of those using
it." He ridiculed concerns about the safety of genetically modified
foods, but expressed sympathy for the perception that "the technology
is in the wrong hands."

"I share the unease about the consequences of control of the
technology by four-to-five big players," he announced in a session on
the ethics of biotechnology.

Another Englishman, David Cove, from Leeds University, couldn't
understand why corporations and the government "arrogantly ignored
the public" and refused to label genetically modified foodstuffs.
Cove, a true believer in the promise of genetic engineering, said the
refusal to label foods is at the core of public distrust of genetic
engineering. "Label it, and if it provides value to consumers, they
will buy it," he said.

The claim that genetically modified foods couldn't be segregated
made no sense and simply fanned fears that something was wrong with
the technology, he added. The real problem, he claimed, is not the
technology, but the political/economic system.

While ridiculing food safety advocates, Cove did admit they had
one legitimate concern--antibiotic resistance. "But the latest
techniques don't use antibiotic resistance," he said.

Swiss molecular biologist Ingo Potrykus said the public reaction
against genetically engineered foods in Europe is understandable
since the early products were plants with herbicide resistance, which
benefits the corporations, but not the public. "Ninety-five percent
of science, even in the public sector, is for private interests, not
the public interest," he said. "Corporations are interested in the
easiest things that will make them the money quickest."

Conference organizers featured Potrykus to the press as evidence
that genetic engineering will end hunger. With funding from the
Rockefeller Foundation, he developed a variety of rice enriched with
iron and vitamin A. According to UNICEF, iron deficiency anemia is
responsible for 20 percent of all maternal deaths in Africa and Asia,
and vitamin A deficiency is responsible for one million childhood
deaths a year, and is the leading cause of childhood blindness.
Potrykus and the Rockefeller Foundation plan on making the rice
available to poor farmers for free, and hope farmers will spread the
useful traits by breeding vitamin-rich rice with their own strains
and saving seed for future plantings.

When given the stage, however, Potrykus denounced patenting and
corporate research. Companies such as Monsanto point to better
nutrition as a promise of genetic engineering, Potrykus said
patenting made his work illegal. "So many fields of research are
blocked by corporate patents," he said. "I had to ignore them or I
couldn't move at all."

A representative of the Rockefeller Foundation waded into the
debate with calls for reforming the patent system, but many
scientists joined Potrykus in calling for the outright abolition of
the system. Scientists should start now by simply breaking the law,
said Potrykus. "What company wants the negative publicity of putting
me in jail for fighting poverty?" he asked.